TheAgitator.com
Roger’s Butt
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008Former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy returns to his old stomping grounds to take a swing at the steroid hypocrisy:
I’m hoping that Roger Clemens polls the members of Waxman’s committee on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Start with Viagra. Or Cialis, ready for action “when the moment is right” — say, a congressman stumbling home after a late-night floor vote on an earmark bill. Clemens might ask the members how many need shots of caffeine drugs to get themselves up and out every morning. He might ask the members how often they reach for another shot of Jack Daniels to enhance their performance while grubbing for bucks from lobbyists at fundraisers. And before leaving Capitol Hill, he should grill the allegedly clean-living baseball reporters on how many of them sit in the press box enhancing their bodies with alcohol, nicotine and caffeine drugs. And a blunt or two when night games go extra innings and deadline nerves need steadying.
I see steroids, and all drugs, as an issue of personal freedom. Is there a difference between fans at big-league baseball games stoned on alcohol while cheering athletes on the base paths juiced with steroids? What’s the difference between scoring with Viagra and scoring with steroids? What’s the difference between people freely abusing their bodies with one drug but not another, as long as no one else is harmed and the consequences are self-sustained?
No difference but one. Some protectors of the public good–reluctantly, the 30 big-league team owners and now the Waxman committee and the sanctimonious sports media posing as guardians of baseball’s purity–have decreed a crackdown.
For a shining example of said sanctimony, see Orin Hatch in today’s WaPo.
How about paxil,allegra.adavan and advil?This shows the failure of the drug and alcohol war.
I find it amazing whenever the Senate gets its panties in a wad over someone else’s ethics. I mean the irony is just too extreme to sneak past anyone with a functioning brain.
I’m still not buying it.
“I see steroids, and all drugs, as an issue of personal freedom.”
I do too. I don’t, however, see breaking your employer’s rules as a matter of personal freedom. Especially when said rule (steroids) is essential to maintaining a product (competition).
“Is there a difference between fans at big-league baseball games stoned on alcohol while cheering athletes on the base paths juiced with steroids?”
Yes, of course there is. I can’t believe this question could be seriously asked.
Alex,fro years it wasn’t banned and remember ,Clemens and Bonds never failed a test.Still ,how does this rise to a matter for Congress.Personally,I think the ban on HGH to recover from injury is a unfair term of employment.Tell a person what they can take for their health is a violation of one’s property rights since you own yourself.HGH is a proven drug with a good track record.It’s the same as laser eye surgery with less risk.
Michael, first, it was understood to be banned because it’s illegal and was explicitedly stated so in a Fay Vincent memo. Second, to some extent the jury is still out on Clemens, but Barry Bonds admitted to using “the cream” and “the clear.” His head also grew 5 sizes. Third, HGH should probably be allowed, at least for healing injuries while on the DL. But it’s not. I do have much more sympathy for an Andy Petite than a Barry Bonds. Fourth, people enter into “unfair” contracts all the time. Recently, there was a story about Texas courts deciding civil cases based on Shariah law because those were the terms of the contract. Also, if the terms are so outrageous, why doesn’t the most powerful union on the planet challenge it?
Isn’t the point here only that congress should be staying out of this? Doesn’t MLB have potentially valid reasons to limit these kinds of substances (leveling the playing field, improving competitiveness, improving their “product”) whereas congress has only bullshit reasons for meddling (self-promotion, publicized faux piety, a wedge for legislation of morality, justification of other drug prohibition, etc)?
It’s one of the duties of Congress under the baseball clause of the Constitution.
Alex, I agree with you with respect to how baseball should deal with the issue internally. However, I think McCarthy’s op-ed is valid with respect to Congress getting involved. I find it difficult to follow most discussions of the issue precisely because commenters fail to specify whether their argument applies to baseball (a private association) or government intervention.
Alex, I gotta call foul. I think the owners have been well aware of steroid use in their players. To the extent they have a rule forbidding it, it would seem it is just there for public PR. I don’t have the overall sales numbers, but I dont recall the owners complaining back when McGuire was filling the seats, not only in St. Louis but in out of town parks.
The OP is correct in stating that all kinds of drugs are apart of our every day life. I would prefer to have honest information on all drugs so that I could make an informed decision as to which ones I need or want, rather than the hysteria that pervades our politics.
I’m with Alex here.
As for Congressional oversight, I have two conflicting thoughts: one they shouldn’t be involved, and two, at least it keeps them from making other trouble - like a little kid in an exersaucer.
I also think there’s dynamic here where those who follow the law are punished. If there were good steroids enforcement, players would have confidence that others weren’t cheating and wouldn’t have to wonder if they too should be choosing a short-term gain/long term health effects route versus the no-steroids route.
I think this matter also concerns baseball fans in a different way than non-fans. It viscerally bothers me that Rafael Palmeiro (4 all star teams) has more career HRs than Mike Schmidt, one of the premier power hitters of his generation, 3 time MVP, 12-time all star, and All-Century team. I don’t expect that to concern non-fans, but stats in baseball mean a lot. Baseball should worry about this annoyance from longtime fans in managing their product.
I know a lot people who used steroids playing college ball, and I can assure you that it is not healthy and that it does make a better ballplayer.
Of course the owners were aware of it. Everybody was. Their hands were tied with the players’ union though. I don’t see how that makes it right. Also for a libertarian blog, people seem to be making arguements that are ad hominen attacks on owners, Congress, etc. and naturalistic arguements about how great a country without drug laws would be, but nobody has a problem with these players flagrantly breaking the terms of a voluntary contract. I’m not aware of a libertarian philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, that allows for exploiting a law while breaking it. I don’t care if people do drugs, but I have no sympathy for a drug dealer who makes an excessive living, given market conditions, by breaking the law. This is essentially what the juicers did. Everyone is supposed to play by the same rules, even if those rules are non-ideal.
On a side note, there’s a crisp Benjamin for anyone in the DC area who walks into the hearing dressed like Vincenzo Pentangeli.
Alex: I don’t think anyone here would have any objection to the Baseball League firing all those juiced players for violating their contract.
steroids and HGH are not illegal,they are controlled and must be OK’d by a doctor.Baseball has banned the use in total.I know of no employer who can fire you for taking a doctors advice.Many who read this site do not believe drugs should be banned.The drug war has failed.I agree baseball can set their own rule,but,using Congress and making federal court case from this it a abuse of power.Plus,it a game,a form of entertainment like the movie and theater.Illegal drug use was rampant in the 20’s and 30′ in baseball and no one cared.The drug was alcohol.Babe Ruth was the most famous abuser of the time.
So where’s the beef? It’s an aweful lot of histrionics about run-of-the-mill congressional grandstanding.
The beef to me is this has turned into a star chamber.Clemens has to respond to evidence he hasn’t seen,has no right to cross,can be asked any question with out objection and has not been accused of a crime.Meanwhile the Justice and IRS agents are sitting there hoping to make a case for perjury.He get no protections required by law and could face a trial.
Some steroids are available with a prescription; some are not. I’m pretty sure both “the cream” and “the clear” are both banned.
I know of many employers who can fire you for following a doctor’s advice.
How is it an abuse of power exactly?
Do you really, honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe Babe Ruth being a drunk is analogous to Barry Bonds juicing so he could break the most prestigious record in sports?
Congress has the power to do this because baseball has an anti-trust exemption.
Michael - Roger Clemens use of Steroids/HGH was (definitely) illegal. Therefore, as Alex said, it was against the rules of baseball. Period. This “it wasn’t banned” junk is a misleading canard that you don’t need to use.
Other than that, I’m with you. Even though steroids were banned, I have trouble condemning players for breaking a rule that baseball wasn’t serious about enforcing. If they want to ban and then test for substances, that’s their right as an employer. Hell, they can ban vitamin C and caffeine for all I care.
But Congress should keep out of it.
I didnt know this was a libertarian blog. That would explain why my keyboard is smoking though.
I have no problem with the owners enforcing their contracts or the League enforcing whatever rules they want. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say the their hands are tied by the Union. It seems more probable that they enjoyed the extra revenue brought about by juiced players and just kept quite (no blood no foul). If the owners and the league are not going to enforce the rules, I don’t see how it falls to the government to do it for them.
……..which brings us back to the prohibition on drugs…….
Matt,that’s where the drug war falls apart.Many people rely on drugs daily for health[say heart problems] and life style[the pill and viagra] and some to feel good[pot,alcohol and allergy meds in some cases].I doubt vitamin c or caffeine would pass a legal test in employment.In truth I feel what you do in your time off is your business.I believe someday drugs like HGH and others will be used openly in sports such as the NFL,a sport where playing the game is more dangerous that a shot in the butt.You know MLB and THE NFL ban speed yet air force pilots take ‘go pills’ on long missions.I guess anything for national defense.It’s hard to be pure at heart on drugs.
Unsurprisingly, it’s the government involvement that’s the problem.
The owners are just reacting to an unfortunate situation resulting from the drug war. In a truly free baseball market, there would be some number of fans who prefer non-juiced athletes and some number who prefer to maximize performance at whatever cost. The league would figure out who can make more money for them and that would be how the rules are made.
Instead, they are forced to adopt the drug warrior standard and attempt to balance the desire for profit with the need to look pious and lawful. Of course this just increases the incentive to juice if you think you can get away with it, and the incentive for the league to look the other way. As long as that’s the case there can’t be a fair playing field of either variety.
I had lunch with some other baseball fans, and we were of course talking about Clemens. It occurred to me that most of you probably don’t exactly understand the baseball/governament dynamic in this case.
In a nutshell, baseball (uniquely) is understood to have an anti-trust exemption for no apparent reason. As part of what at this point is basically a verbal commitment, baseball gets certain anti-trust benefits like approving team moves, and Congress gets to use it’s amazing oversight powers.
I don’t really agree with most of this. I don’t like public funding of stadiums. I think this anti-trust stuff is nonsense. Congress is definitely grandstanding. All that said, the libertarian drug legalization reflex is in full effect on an issue that doesn’t really have anything to do with legalization and which Congress does technically have a right to investigate.
Yes. That’s right. I forgot. Congress is compelled to control and manage everything that receives any benefit from the government.
Also, regarding these latest comments, I’m reminded of a wise man who once said
“…people seem to be making arguements that are ad hominen attacks on owners, Congress, etc. and naturalistic arguements about how great a country without drug laws would be…”
I agree completely that steroid use should not be a Congressional/legal issue. However, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s completely wrong for MLB to ban their use.
Sporting leagues follow a set of rules that make up a game. These rules are completely arbitrary (bases 90 feet apart, only wooden bats, etc.). If certain actions are considered dangerous or not in accordance with fair competition, they are banned (horsecollar tackle and salary cap rules, respectively). I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong about that, mostly because all sporting rules are really arbitrary. If a league wants to arbitrarily ban the use of certain substances, that’s their problem.
I just don’t support Congress/our legal system dealing with things with such arbitrarity.
As a huge baseball fan, I’d like to see all players use steroids to enhance their performance.
Weebs loves the longball.
I wish Congress would get their panties in a bunch over what’s going on with Police Brutality (did anyone see the news tonight about the incident with the quadraplegic man in Florida?) and the gross misuse of the SWAT Teams in this country. I’m with Colman McCarthy on this one….I could give two hoots if a baseball player takes steriods….if he wants to screw up his body, that’s his business!
I wonder what we’d find out if we gave all the congressmen/women and their staffs drug tests? Maybe they could then have hearings on it…
1) Congress isn’t investigating the steriod/baseball issue because of baseball’s anti-trust status. It’s all about political grandstanding. Politician’s usually can’t go wrong by playing the moral indignation card. In fact, they are pros at it.
2) One can’t really look at the steroid issue outside of the WOD. If there’s no WOD, there likely never would have been a steroid issue.
3) While this is conjecture on my part, I tend to doubt steroid usage controversy would have reached the frenzy it has if Barry Bonds had been more accomodating to the sports media during his career. Bonds’ failure to cultivate any relationships with members of the print and electronic media left him with few friends once this became an issue. I doubt the pious voices coming from the sports media over the last few years would have been as vocal if they knew where their witch hunt was going to take them (Clemens and Pettite among others).
4) People that use the word “juiced” when talking about steroids usually don’t have clue as to how steroids work in achieving muscle growth.